Cited by 15Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology StudiesReliability and Agreement in MeasurementForensic Entomology and Diptera Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Cognitive bias and the order of examination in forensic anthropological non-metric methods: a pilot study

Open access
Davidson, Marion, Nakhaeizadeh, Sherry, Rando, Carolyn·2023·Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences

Abstract

Research has established that contextual information has the potential to influence the decisions of examiners in various forensic domains, including forensic anthropology. Studies have demonstrated that the non-metric sex estimation methods are susceptible to issues of cognitive bias, however the different types of stimuli that can influence the decision-making process remain understudied. As forensic anthropologists will examine multiple skeletal elements to estimate the sex of skeletal remains, a pilot study was designed to assess the potential of cognitive bias resulting from the order of examination. Two groups performed a non-metric sex estimation of the innominates and the skull with methods from Standards on one individual complete skeleton. Group A examined the skull first followed by the innominates, while Group B examined the innominates first followed by the skull. Results reveal a significant difference between the two groups in the sex estimation of the innominates and the complete skeleton (p = 0.020 and p = 0.022, respectively). This research demonstrates that order of examination for sex estimation may act as context and potentially influence the subsequent analyses. Additional research is necessary to broaden the understanding of decision-making and aid in the establishment of standard operating procedures designed to mitigate the potential effects of cognitive bias.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/00450618.2021.1998625

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.06.002 · DOI
  2. 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.08.006 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.04.003 · DOI
  4. 10.1080/00450618.2017.1281348 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016 · DOI
  6. 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.11.005 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1111/1556-4029.12805 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2005.10.017 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/j.scijus.2012.12.002 · DOI
  11. 10.1016/j.forsciint.2017.04.009 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.scijus.2016.08.003 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/1556-4029.13817 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Dror I, 2021, J Forensic Sci, 1556
  15. 10.1111/1556-4029.13091 · DOI
  16. 10.1111/1556-4029.13191 · DOI
  17. 10.1037/lhb0000066 · DOI
  18. 10.1007/s10979-010-9226-4 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.005 · DOI
  20. Klales AR, 2016, 68th Annual Scientific Meeting of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 188
  21. 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.11.003 · DOI
  22. 10.1111/1556-4029.13569 · DOI
  23. 10.1111/1556-4029.12473 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.scijus.2019.08.005 · DOI
  25. 10.1111/1556-4029.14265 · DOI
  26. 10.1080/00450618.2014.965204 · DOI
  27. 10.1111/1556-4029.13836 · DOI
  28. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2013.01.001 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1080/14999013.2017.1317302 · DOI
  30. Klales AR, 2013, Am J Phys Anthropol, 96, 74
  31. Buikstra JE, 1994, Proceedings of a Seminar at the Field Museum of Natural History, Organized by Jonathan Haas, Third Printing
  32. 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00080.x · DOI
  33. 10.1002/ajpa.20776 · DOI
  34. 10.1080/00450618.2013.797026 · DOI
  35. 10.1017/CBO9780511978098.011 · DOI
  36. 10.1002/9781119226529.ch3 · DOI
  37. 10.1111/1556-4029.13496 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.scijus.2013.12.005 · DOI
  39. Burke AS, 2006, William Mary Law Rev, 45, 1587
  40. 10.1016/B978-0-12-815767-1.00006-7 · DOI
  41. 10.1002/ajpa.10012 · DOI
  42. 10.1002/ajpa.1330680103 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1007/BF02437238 · DOI · Paper page
  44. IBM SPSS, 2017, Statistics for Macintosh
  45. Brothwell DR, 1981, Digging up bones, 59
  46. Berg GE, 2013, Forensic anthropology: an introduction, 139
  47. 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.1016/j.scijus.2012.10.004 · DOI
  49. 10.1016/j.scijus.2017.06.003 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 15

Metadata

Authors
Davidson, M., Nakhaeizadeh, S., & Rando, C.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Davidson, Marion
Venue
Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences
Published
2021-11-09
Volume
55
Issue
2
Pages
255-271
ISSN
  • 0045-0618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1834-562X
OpenAlex
W3212830169
Cited by
15
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2
FWCI
8.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Reliability and Agreement in Measurement
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Insect Science › Forensic Entomology and Diptera Studies
Keywords
cognitive biases, forensic anthropology, skeletal remains, skull, innominate, decision-making, contextual factors, standard operating procedures

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cognitive bias and the order of examination in forensic anthropological non-metric methods: a pilot study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/00450618.2021.1998625
The paper
Davidson, M., Nakhaeizadeh, S., & Rando, C. (2023). Cognitive bias and the order of examination in forensic anthropological non-metric methods: a pilot study. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/00450618.2021.1998625